Science is magic, you take the hidden nature of the universe and use mathmatics to create things that did not exist prior, science is the alchemical dream come true. Science trully is great and magical the problem with Science is its philosophy that has now left it in a place where the model for nature has lead us to a place where we can see that reality is nothing without discription and is stranger than we can suppose.
Science is the opposite of magic. Science is the attempt to explain things, and do away with a reliance on the supernatural to account for things.
You understand this, on some level, but you feel a deep psychological need to protect the faith with which you identify, and therefore twist that understanding into incomprehension. This is what fuels your intentional obtuseness. This is why I no longer see the use in responding to your comments.
What is the relationship between mathmatics and science to nature? If what science says about reality is true then science too is just important to humans and therefore has no more use then that of religion, it depends on the individual as to which is more valuable as it is all made up by man for man and this means it is nothing but preference and nothing to do with intelligence as to the choices made. You and I are just doomed to our own poor tastes.
« What is the relationship between mathmatics and science to nature? »
Mathematics is a tool used to describe observed natural relations. By extention, this tool can also be used to describe hypothetical relations that do not necessarily apply to observed instances.
@XGralgrathor Yes but is the tool describing nature itself in full or is it just a symbolic construct that man has invented, only important to man or is it an understanding that transcends men?
Maths is a symbolic representation of relations in nature. It can be thought of as a language. Like language, it is manmade. Like language, it can be used to describe reality.
@MrGralgrathor When you say it can be used to describe reality does this not mean used to describe reality to man as man sees it? I mean the math becomes a description which is ONLY langauge.
If this langauge is only important to humans how is it any different than a religion?
« I mean the math becomes a description which is ONLY langauge. »
Yes, basically. Even mathematicians (on their better days) don't believe they have some special insight into reality that all others lack. That attitude is reserved for the fundamentally religious.
@XGralgrathor But it is not reserved for the fundamentally religious, despite the fact that when you get backed into a corner you admit there is no way special insight into reality you speak on every other occasion about maths accuracy and ability to define what is and can be accepted as reality.
« But it is not reserved for the fundamentally religious »
Well, mostly. There's always some nutcases who don't have religious delusions, but mostly it's theists who seem to think they have knowledge about the nature of reality that the world's leading scientists lack, and that their personal insight gives them greater certitude as to the accuracy of their beliefs than actually testing their beliefs against reality.
@XGralgrathor Yes perhaps but do you not do this yourself? I mean have you done all the tests yourself of the things that you believe to be real using science? If not is it not just as silly to believe that somebody else understands something so it must be real even over what I have experienced to be real? Either way you are trusting somebody elses experience of what is going on, are you not? If not can you explain how not?
@XGralgrathor You just framed a small part of my comment and responded to that instead of what my comment asked you, do you care to answer the question that I asked and explain the difference or is this an attempt to avoid the question?
And by doing so invalidated the rest of your comment. Again: I don't think any of my statements are excluded from the requirement of testability. And no, I don't see how the fact that I myself have not done *all* of the work required to show the Earth is a sphere means I should reject the proposition. That's just reasonable.
@MrGralgrathor Again you fram 4 words of a comment and respond to that instead of the actual question, and you do this on all of your replies to people it is an attempt to avoid the philosophical issues that arise in your beliefs due to you not having ever questioned them, that is fine but it would be nice if you had some sort of an idea of what you are defending or atleast could show that you have some idea.
@allthingsarelikethis He generally does that. It's kind of annoying checking your inbox to see MrGralgrathor highlighting one small part of your sentence and writing an essay about it explaining why he thinks your sentence is stupid, then you end up changing the subject trying to defend that little sentence. for instance. That cat is black because his fur is black because i painted it black because i bought black paint.
MrGralgrathor: " i bought black paint." Actually, the paint was sold to you.
@XGralgrathor I would give credit to imagination in either case of needing either science or religion and your assertion that people can survive without their religion is opinion I would be willing to bet christians would not agree with that statement.
That's nice. However, the claim still remains valid, and accurate: humans can survive without religion (we know this because many humans *do* survive without religion) and most of us *do* use experience-based reasoning in everyday decision-making - in fact, we'd be hard pressed to survive without the benefits of experience-based reasoning.
@XGralgrathYes but the experience you speak of and the method that you believe in are only things that humans understand derived from the human imagination, there is no evidence that this matters to anything except mankind and in this way it is no different than a religion or any philosophy you can argue that it is more valuble but there is no proof or evidence that it actually is more valuble than spiritual or religious views it depends on your personal hierarchy does it not?
Irrelevant. The fact remains that people can survive without religion, but would be hard-put to survive without experience-based reasoning, the foundation of science.
@MrGralgrathor There are plenty of people that fell that religion is needed to survive life again it is perspective to assert that science is more needed than religion to some people.
Science is good for navigating the physical part of our experieces but just as you have admited, it is nothing more than a system that is important to humans and in this way has no higher ground in the debate of science Vs any other philosophy. If you think it does please explain how.
« There are plenty of people that fell that religion is needed to survive life »
Of course. But they're wrong, as there are people who survive without religion, demonstrating conclusively that one can survive without religion.
No such thing has been demonstrated for experience-based reasoning though. For instance, experience tells you to check the road before crossing. I dare you to ignore your experience in the matter.
also, stop copying and pasting; most times i never see your comments cuz they get spammed. im not saying your not original, you probably have the same arguments on different channels, but spammed messages barely get read, which is why it took my 3 days to reply simply cuz i just so happened to re-visit your channel and clicked on them.
Also there is no such thing as a dry liquid. All pods are tigs, and all tigs are pods, therefore, all liquids are wet, and all wet things are liquid. there is no solid thing with wet texture, you cannot say Non-Nutonian fluid, because liquids were added to it to give it that semi-wet texture. So your argument isn't strong enough. Just admit evolution is rubbish, and that you were created by God. accept the fact that your intelligence and your complexities were god given, and not an accident.
And there's no such thing as a healthy kidney that doesn't do what kidneys do, or a healthy liver that doesn't do what livers do.
Science explains what kidneys do and how they do it. It explains what livers do and how they do it. It explains what brains do and how they do it. What it doesn't say is how to let *you* make them do those things, because the premise that such things could be consciously controlled is false.
So, tell me this: if all of the things that we'd expect to see if a model were accurate are seen, and none of the things that we'd expect to see if the model were false are seen, then what reason do I have to reject that model? Explain, because I'm really curious about that.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 0.9. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution?.. No sir.
« but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations »
Which only confirms the point I am making: they lack the physiological structures necessary to produce abstract thought, therefore they have no abstract thought.
By the way, laminin and laminin-type molecules are ubiquitous in many organisms besides humans. It's true that humans have much human-specific physiology. The presence of laminin is not part of that uniqueness.
@MrGralgrathor I dont know why i said "laminin".... -_- i admit that was stupid.. However, SINCE they lack physiological structures necessary to produce abstract thought, they are by no means capable of becoming a human, being LIKE a human, or gaining 'new' genes to replicate humanity. This is why animals are animals, and their only commonsense is 'instinct' or 'natural convenient rationale'. We may fall into the category of Apes, but such a categorizing was done by humans, therefore flawed.
« they are by no means capable of becoming a human »
... Again you speak nonsense. I never claimed that non-human apes could "become human". However, your statement that non-human great apes are *completely* different from humans is also manifestly wrong. Great apes *are* capable of some abstract thought, and in fact I hold that a non-human great ape could compete, mentally, with a five year old human child, IF it could somehow acquire linguistic skills.
But great apes, on the other hand, come up to a good 80. They have basic reasoning skills and are capable of some abstract thought. The most significant difference between non-human great apes and humans is linguistic skills. If they had that, there would be no noticeable difference between a non-human great ape, say a chimp, and a 5 year old human child.
@MrGralgrathor also, as for your updates, i receive them sometimes, but i am truly speaking when i said i had to click 'view' to see some of your comments. I do not know why. I wouldn't make that up, otherwise i would ignore your comments and pretend i won some sort of egotistic debate..
Appreciated. Sincerely though, I cannot start to compensate for all of Youtube's deficiencies. I'll see if I can find some technical solution that won't affect my commenting style.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 0.9. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 5. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 5, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a whopping 2, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a whopping 2, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. Trust me, from a human scale from 1 to 100 , monkeys only come up to a whopping 2, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety.
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. don't waste time
Please remove the harsh tones, and in like-manner i will do so. As a matter of fact, i withdraw every negative thing i have said to you. Let us be philosophers here, you never know what we can accomplish. hey you may even be able to improve upon what other biologists or physicists assert. It is only a positive thing to do here. which is "think" and "discuss" war will only make our pride cause us to be bitter towards each other, and as a christian, i do not want to be a hypocrite
i would much rather we argue in private messages, so yielding and understanding can be done confidentially, and the egotistic battle to have the last comment would end, and end all possible embarassment, i like your ability to think. it may help you.
No, there's no real need to. I like being forced to present my statements in clear and concise terms. It keeps the issues from becoming clouded by big words, muddy thinking and sidetracks.
And whenever you get around this, whenever you, physics, astrology, or biology, reach the end of infinity, you can come back and teach me. you only know the beginning which is zero, but from there on, it is a bottomless pit, which proves my theory that numbers in terms of verbally counting are only given to us through defiant understanding. you cannot count the infinite decimals between 0 and 1, but it would be easier to count from 0 to 5 by just saying "zero, one,two,three,four,five" ignorantly
Now 'infinity', as far as I can tell, *is* an abstract notion. I have no way of telling that there can be an infinite amount of anything in the real world. 'Infinity' is a useful mathematical construct, but that's a far cry from claiming that it therefore must have real existence.
So let's table the 'infinity' issue for now. There may or may not be an infinite amount of something - it has no real bearing on the current subject.
Also, to say mammals dream, is saying "whatever created mammals from the primordial soup, has the capability or attribute of dreaming". You cannot win this war no matter how sharp your responses are, even if you butter up biology to make it seem to pretty to deny, raw commonsense and simplicity will still confound you, and even so, destroy the concepts you so ignorantly assert. also what about the concept of infinity? the universe is based off of this concept. maybe you should contend with this.
« Also, to say mammals dream, is saying "whatever created mammals from the primordial soup, has the capability or attribute of dreaming" »
No, it isn't saying that. You seem to be practicing your skills in formulating non-sequiturs. There is no path from "mammals dream" to "whatever formed mammals dreams". Mammals, as far as we can tell, evolved from earlier animals through natural processes. Natural processes do not dream.
@XGralgrathor So what made mammals, after its evolution, able to dream? where did this stunning capability come from? I am not asking for something you cannot provide, and if it requires a long explanation, please reply in a private message with a long enough plausible response. All gene capabilities are traceable and re-traceable, which is why us humans can mate and ONLY produce other humans. this is why all other species can ONLY produce themselves, this isn't going anywhere bro.
« So what made mammals, after its evolution, able to dream? »
Muddy thinking, boy. Dreaming is a result of the physiology of mammals, which evolved. Just like being able to walk on two legs is the result of the physiology of certain primates; an evolved ability.
« this is why all other species can ONLY produce themselves »
You want to switch the subject to evolution and speciation, and drop the whole 'supernatural' subject? Fine with me. I'll be happy to correct and improve your understanding of evolution.
Finally, in that aspect, the aspect to prove science cannot define that which is supernatural or abstract, it has no place to disprove such things. If science is incapable of calculating or understanding mathematically the processes of that which is intangible or existing outside of physical understanding, it has no place to disprove it. An attempt to disprove it is saying it does not exist because i just cannot put it in my test-tube, or calculate it, or begin to fully define it.
« prove science cannot define that which is supernatural or abstract »
Well, there's no inconsistency in saying that science has no bearing on something that has not been demonstrated to exist (the 'supernatural'). As for 'abstract': I think you are still abusing the word. An abstract is a notional representation of something that may or may not exist in reality. To say that 'love is abstract' is to ignore the fact that the idea of love refers to a physical phenomenon.
@XGralgrathor to say something like a "notional representation of what may or may not exist in reality", is to say that all definitive abstract principles "may or may not actually exist". in that sense, love - in and of itself- is something that is 'abstract', and though it is evident of its existence and all other abstract principles, it is foolish to say it "may or [may not exist]" i am not abusing the word, i am using the word in its entirety, something you've never done.
« is to say that all definitive abstract principles "may or may not actually exist" »
An abstract in itself does not exist. It is the idea of something. It is not an object with independent existence. It *may* however *refer* to something with independent existence. The abstract notion of love, for instance, refers to the physical process of love, the emotions, the thought patterns, the physiological responses.
@XGralgrathor Okay, nice logics, and that is wisely put together. However, in this case you are saying that all that does not physically exist are not real. "to think" is physical, but "thought" is abstract, "to desire" is physical but "desires" are abstract. I am certain that these abstract things exist. Also remember that i ask you to tell me the steps of "how to think"?. tell me how to think, tell me what do i do to think. this is another mystery, which is abstract by principle. But tell me
« all that does not physically exist are not real »
I'm saying that abstract notions are abstract notions, not objects with an independent existence. Abstract notions exist only as perspectives on other things; other things that may or may not have an independent existence. Abstract notions are real only in the sense that we can conceive of them; they have no *independent* existence, although they may refer to things with an independent existence.
« "to think" is physical, but "thought" is abstract »
Well, one could define the word "thought" as a label for an abstraction. But it would be an abstract referring to a physical thing: a process in the brain.
No, they don't. They are real, in that we can conceive of them. But they *in themselves* are only abstractions. In the case of 'desire', the abstraction refers to a combination of mental processes, which is in turn a physical process, something we can point at in the physical world.
« i ask you to tell me the steps of "how to think"? »
I don't have to tell you how to think. Thinking is a process naturally following from the physiology of your brain. You have a brain; you can't help but think, just as an apple tree can't help but grow apples. And just like the apple tree, you have no low-level control over your thought patterns. You can decide what to think about, to a certain degree, but that's about it.
@XGralgrathor I can define why a tree grows apples, I can also tell a tree how to grow apples. by absorbing the nutrients, then xylem and blah blah blah all of that, that is a full instruction on "what to do"in terms of making a fruit. but "how to think", there are no steps to approach this deed. I can actually help to think. a time when i am "not thinking" is me not doing this action: watching TV is not thinking, eating food is notthinking, and i dont have to think to breathe. see?
And I can explain in neurological and endocrinological terms how the physical process of thought results from the physology of your body. It would take me about twenty thousand pages of text to do so (probably more, much more, but it'd be a start) though.
@XGralgrathor we are actually discussing the brain, which do things that confounds us both. but Science cannot be anthropomorphically defined to be able to make divine decisions on what can or cannot exist. it is only a step to understand that which surrounds us physically, but giving science such divine right to make such decisions as universal, is giving science characteristics of a god, therefore you are guilty of idolatry, and science would then be your god.
Excuse me, but if you're going to use words, define them first. And if you're going to inject supernaturalism into subjects, first establish that it applies: demonstrate the existence of the thing you assert.
@XGralgrathor divine decisions as decisions dubbed superior to every other concept of reality or actuality (inside and out). a divine decision is a decision which irrevocably portray the significance and totality of all things within its own retrospect and such laws much reflect outside of its own concept. which is the definition of truly supernaturally omnipotent. It's simple really.
« divine decisions as decisions dubbed superior to every other concept of reality or actuality »
That makes no sense. First, you'd have to define what 'superior' means. That implies a value judgment. Judged by whom, and by what criteria? And how are you going to judge a decision to be 'superior to a concept of reality'? You are comparing entirely different classes of things based on undefined criteria.
@XGralgrathor jumping to evolution is not my attempt to evade the topic, we can go there if you'd like, but it is only on your will. as for divine decisions, there are multiple laws of physics, and there are multiple laws of math. a divine law is in a sense, a law of possibility and reasons for such possibilites that are superior to all other laws. meaning no law can go outside of this boundary. meaning anything else would be an impossibility, which is the concept of asserting God does not exist
@XGralgrathor well sir, that law, is hysterically, the same law of faith. the reason i said there is no law to rule out god's existence is me saying that scientists cannot say he does not exist, because they have not the capacity to do so
« that law, is hysterically, the same law of faith »
You're saying that your claim that a god must exist is a matter of faith? That's another way of saying that the accuracy of the claim cannot be demonstrated. Why should I or anyone accept such a claim if its accuracy cannot be demonstrated?
That's an entirely *different* statement. Of course there is no such law. There is no law to rule out the existence of pixies, fairies and invisible pink unicorns either. That doesn't mean there is a reason to think that any of these mythological beings, including your god, might actually exist.
@XGralgrathor seeing that both you and I know that these things were evidently created for the entertainment of children, we will leave that as dead. such imaginations only have concepts of entertainment, not evident concepts of why we are alive, how are we able to live, and creationism. There is no book written about the divine principles of leprechauns? there are no disciples of fairies? and half of the world are not in a religion of pixie-ism. so we obviously know those doesn't exist. lol....
« seeing that both you and I know that these things were evidently created for the entertainment of children »
False and irrelevant. The relevant thing is that they are mythical beings for which there exists no evidence but that we can also not disprove existing. I we take 'faith' as a criterion, we should accept their existence.
@XGralgrathor cont- first step to prove god is that, nothing naturally can give us the attributes and capabilities we have without first having the potential to do such things (ruling out biotic nature), which means a divine being "God" imprint these attributes in our genes. second step, is that the universe is built off the concept of infinity, and since we cannot contain infinity, we have to understand it was created by that which encompasses such a dimension which encompasses infinity.
« nothing naturally can give us the attributes and capabilities we have without first having the potential to do such things »
That is nonsensical. It does not follow. From anything. For instance: evolution can give organisms new capabilities: evolution is not a physical entity that can have such capabilities itself.
@XGralgrathor in order to "give" something you must first "have" something. therefore evolution of giving attributes bigger than its capacity to contain such attributes is a contradiction within itself. therefore, it is 'nonsensical'
@XGralgrathor to cause something is to have a reaction prior to causing it, and no reaction can create a gene imprint, within the process of passing on traits, if so, reactions can happen in the womb and create super powerful babies, or babies that can do things we are incapable of. lol
New genes are often caused by spontaneous mutations, which are basically chemical reactions in the genome. Notice the word spontaneous here: nothing else is required for them to happen than the molecules of which the genome consists behaving in the way molecules behave. They don't require any external influence for them to behave that way.
@XGralgrathor by the psychology of your body you mean the capacity of your body to perceive and react and weigh the balance? that alone is its capability by that definition. you can still define the physical process of thought, but, and i know this may be aggravating, you cannot explain "how to think" you can tell "why i think" or "for what logical reasons i may find myself doing so", but not "how to think". also read my comment about why the title of this video contradicts your claims
Physiology. The physical structure of your body. The way neurons work, the way hormones affect neurological processes, and so on.
« you cannot explain "how to think" »
Yes: that *is* the physiological process. The physiological process of neural signals and patterns, of neural and hormonal interactions, that is how we think.
@XGralgrathor that is how we think, meaning that is how we are able to think, but in like manner of saying how to sing, or how to run, or how to walk, or how to swim, you cannot just tell me how it is possible, you have to tell me "how to do it", of course swimming is possible because we can contain air and the water is more dense than us, but a noob must know "how to swim" or else, him and his less-dense self will drown regardless of his capacity to swim.......
Not in any depth. Not without the twenty thousand pages of text on the physiology of our brains, the neurochemical processes, and so on, no. You'll have to look up the texts yourself. But those processes basically are our thoughts. They are us.
@XGralgrathor I believe you, you are right, i know you can tell me how it is possible. but that sentence of mine you put in quote is only half of the entire sentence, therefore i'll have to overlook this response.
When I quote only a part, you can usually assume I am responding to the entire sentence, sometimes the entire comment.
Again: I don't have to tell you how to think. You *are* thinking. I *can* explain how you are doing it. Which is where the stack of books on neurology etc. comes in.
There's an interesting book you might read by a Dick Swaab, a dutch author. He tried to explain the working of our brains, thoughts, desires, and so on, in laymen terms, seen from the perspective of endocrinology. Some of his books have been translated into English, but I don't know if this one has. In English, the title would be "We Are Our Brains".
@XGralgrathor "science has no bearing on something that has not been demonstrated to exist'', this is erroneous. if you cannot physically demonstrate it, then you cannot scientifically disprove it. all that which is abstract or supernatural, can only be explained and proposed, also conceived, but not physically demonstrated in retrospect of its opposite which is disproving it. Therefore this is why accepting God, is having Faith. you cannot disprove God can you?
« cannot physically demonstrate it, then you cannot scientifically disprove it »
Kid, use yer brain for a second, will you? What would be the use in trying to disprove elves, pixies, leprechauns, the Spaghetti Monster, and so on?
Until a substantiable claim of existence is made, there is nothing for science to address. And such a claim would have to be testable for science to consider it, because science is the mechanism of testing claims to derive their "truth" value.
@XGralgrathor You just said it, "until a substantial claim of existence is made, there is nothing for science to address", therefore that just restates my theory that science cannot address that which is supernatural, therefore it cannot disprove it. So in conclusion, we cannot scientifically post a video saying the "supernatural is not real" because you cannot prove such things. These things are outside of scientific understandings. I have indeed used my brain, farther than physical horizons.
« science cannot address that which is supernatural »
That's right. But since there are no testable claims as to the existence of anything supernatural, there's really no problem. Moreover, since we could define the 'natural' as anything that affects observable reality, there's only two options for the 'supernatural': either it doesn't exist, or it's entirely irrelevant to our existence. So there is no problem here, nor will there ever be.
@XGralgrathor supernatural by definition means a being with characteristics outside of what is natural. I understand your reasons, and i do think its genius to say so, but to dismiss that which is a supernatural principle is somewhat saying "because my god 'science' cannot touch this, and because no man can demonstrate it, i dont have to believe it even exists'' and without offense, it means being lazy. this is why christians use the application of faith, which is evidence of things not seen.
« supernatural by definition means a being with characteristics outside of what is natural »
And 'natural' means whatever affects observable reality. Meaning that either the supernatural does not exist, or it does not affect observable reality, in which case it's irrelevant whether it exists or not.
@XGralgrathor by irrelevant you mean that it does not physically apply to you. that is fine, i am not her to say a ghost pops up in your life and control your day. but as far as saying that the supernatural does not exist is saying you have tangibly disproved this....
@XGralgrathor not really a wise thing to say. you cannot say what all have happened to anybody, remember you said you have not seen such supernatural claims yet, so i dont think asserting that same thing for everybody is a safe thing to do
that is evidence in itself. you have not seen 'all' claims.... as much as i've had to search up the sanity of that which you assert, you have to search up such 'claims' that you've never come across. simple
that is evidence in itself. you have not seen 'all' claims.... as much as i've had to search up the sanity of that which you assert, you have to search up such 'claims' that you've never come across. simple
Abstracts are ideas of things. Things that may or may not exist. The idea of love, for instance, is about love, which does exist. The idea of justice however refers to something that has no physical existence: we have only the idea, the abstract.
@XGralgrathor having faith is knowing there is, but is not able to absorb it with your senses. your senses are all that allow you to perceive something to be real. The beauty of faith is know it is, without seeing it. Faith is the substance of things hope for, and the evidence of things not seen.
No. Either 'knowing' is used to indicate having a belief about something that is justifiable in real terms, or else the word loses all meaning. You can't just say "I know this", if 'this' hasn't been established: then it's just a belief, not knowledge.
@XGralgrathor wait, you canot split my sentence in half.... "having faith is knowing without seeing". faith is the "evidence" of things "not seen". to have faith is to be consistently believing that which is evident though it has not tangibly presented itself to you, unless you have felt supernatural experiences such as premoitions, the holy spirit, or being raised from the dead, which have all occured with proof, look them up.
So your faith is based on some other test of observable reality? Then you redefine the word 'faith' to actually mean 'trust in the accuracy of ones senses', whether or not such senses include sight.
@XGralgrathor you know of air.... you believe in air, you have faith in its existence, yet you have never seen air. How do you even know that what is blowing against you is not air? how are you certain it is not a wave of radioactive broken down ions invisible because of the recombination of protons to electrons, allowing photons to flow freely? therefore, accepting air as "true" without seeing it, or containing it, is faith itself
@XGralgrathor yes you can "test" whether air exists, but you still cannot tell me that air blows on you everyday, you cannot even sense airborne diseases coming around you or entering you or blowing on you, because you are a slave to faith and faith alone that every invisible thing that is "windy" has to be air. to refute such things is to argue against your original claims. I am not here to disprove you entirely, but only to show how certin aspects of evolution and the BB are foolishness. :)
« but you still cannot tell me that air blows on you everyday »
I can test the pressure and constitution of the gases surrounding me at any time, given the necessary expenditure of effort. But even without continued testing, it would be an entirably reasonable conclusion that the gases surrounding me were indeed air, given my knowledge of biology, chemistry, geology, and so on. No faith would be required. There is sufficient reason to conclude I am indeed surrounded by air.
@XGralgrathor I take it you missed a comment i made. How do you know that these mixture of gasses called "air" is ALWAYS the thing which blows upon you?, again, it could be a wall of broken down ions in the recombination retrospect. You simply would not. you simply cannot tell when you've contracted an airborne disease while it is happening to you. You cannot walk outside and say "AHHH, a disease just touched me!!" these are the things which you cannot see, therefore faith in "air" is evident
"I can test the pressure and constitution of the gases surrounding me at any time"
and seconds
"The absence of absolutes does not require us to have faith"
In short: it is *reasonable*, based on the evidence available, that while we're on Earth, we will be surrounded by air, exceptional circumstances excepted. No faith is required.
@XGralgrathor Ahh, but you would have to TEST such things. You cannot Test something as it is happening to you, then it would become a past event on which you can study. Same concept of faith and religion. Again i am not here to bash you, just to appreciate your capability to think and respond, so that i may respond, and if i am unable to respond, that means you have won. So i advise you, think about all possible responses i can give you and answer them before i type it. easy :)
Not if you can be reasonably sure based on available knowledge and past experience.
Like I said, a number of times now, it is only *absolute* certitute that would require faith. But we, all of us, you included, don't live our lives in absolute certainty of anything. Well, except then perhaps your godbelief, which *does* require faith.
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can ONLY be touched by invisible things if it is AIR. and in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect. It is by logic and conscience you would do so.
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can ONLY be touched by invisible things if it is AIR. and in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect. It is by logic and conscience you would do so.
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can only be touched by invisible things if and only if its air. in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect. It is by logic and conscience you would do so.
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can only be touched by invisible things if and only if its air. in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect.
« being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities »
No, that's *absolutely* sure (which is *UNreasonable*, since you can't be absolutely sure about anything). The keyword in "being reasonably sure" is *reasonably*. Which means being sure to the same extent that you're sure that the sun will rise next day. There's always the off chance that it won't happen, but but it turned out okay so far, and there's no real reason to expect otherwise now.
@XGralgrathor well great response, i hope you pick wisely, now that you're at the fork in your beliefs, since you have to pick from both "seemingly illogical" sides, i hope you pick Christ. Great talk though.
@XGralgrathor and one last thing, you still haven't told me "How to think". remember, dont tell me why am i able to think, just tell me "how to think", like "how to swim" or "how to run", but yes, tell me "how to think". you will realize that you cannot possibly tell me how to, and it is something you voluntarily do so it's not like it's just some natural thing the brain does, so tell me, how to think? this is a capability given to us by that which is supernatural.[Mind], Body, and Soul.
Again: I don't have to tell you how to think. You *are* thinking. I *can* explain *how* you are doing it. Which is where the stack of books on neurology etc. comes in.
@XGralgrathor You just admitted you cannot explain how. Therefore it is a supreme capability that no common animal or particle can do. Animals don't think, they react off of their instincts. The minute an animal stars to "think" and/or "rationalize", that's when the animal can equivocate being a human. Therefore, evolution is rubbish. You cannot explain how races came to be, you cannot explain how a "female specie" with "eggs" were created for every "initial specie", particles aren't beings. :)
On the contrary. I told you many times now that I *can* explain how thought works, given the required volumes of explanatory text.
What I can *not* do is tell you how to consciously act to *stop* thinking, other than to give yourself a good bash over the head with a heavy, blunt instrument.
@MrGralgrathor Oil is indeed wet, im sure you don't think its dry.... well anyways, You indeed explained how thoughts work, but you haven't explained how to produce a thought. I am not bashing your intelligence, i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism. And a fun fact, if you bash me in the head, then i will be left up to 'thinking' ONLY, without physically doing anything since i lost connection..O_O
« you haven't explained how to produce a thought »
Again: that's easy. Get born with a healthy brain. Of course you don't get to decide whether you get born with a healthy brain or not, and neither do you get to decide whether you think or not - unless you take some fairly hefty medication.
@XGralgrathor Actually, you still haven't explain. 'how to think'. Let us ignore my mother&father's business of reproduction... Only you and I are on this planet, tell me, "how to think" ? And as for your 'healthy brain' suggestion, people with unhealthy brains can 'think' as well :/ You will see that you cannot because, as i've just said, the brain CAN ONLY produce the abstract. (be sure to read the comment before this one).
You're a bit dense, aren't you? I've told you a hundred times now that I can't tell you how to think anymore than I can tell you how to use your liver to synthesize insuline. Your liver just does. Your brain just does. It's what these organs do. I can tell you what thought is, how it works, but asking people to tell you "how to think" is just nonsense. And if you haven't gotten a clue by now, I'm done with your nonsense.
@MrGralgrathor Lol "Use my liver?". Do i seriously "consciously" use my liver? That is where get into the involuntary aspects of our body, but i have already demonstrated that thinking is voluntary, therefore the liver 'doing' is totally on it's own, and get this, it still cannot work without the brain. only thing demonstrated to work without the brain is the heart, but that's not relevant. The brain stands alone, as much as you hate the question, you still have to explain this. Mr. Wiseguy
« Lol "Use my liver?". Do i seriously "consciously" use my liver? »
EXACTLY. You DON'T. Nor do you consciously use your brain. You have no say in the matter (unless you do the thing with the hammer). When you're awake, you think. Period. The demand that somebody teach you "how to think" is simply nonsensical. At best, I can teach you how to think *logically*, but you've already demonstrated an acute lack of interest in that.
« i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism »
But you have done nothing of a kind, so far. All you've done is complain about how we (meaning: you) don't understand how thought works. It's not an argument for *anything*.
« i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism »
But you have done nothing of a kind, so far. All you've done is complain about how we (meaning: you) don't understand how thought works. It's not an argument for *anything*.
« i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism »
But you have done nothing of a kind, so far. All you've done is complain about how we (meaning: you) don't understand how thought works. It's not an argument for *anything*.
« if you bash me in the head, then i will be left up to 'thinking' ONLY »
Not quite. If you get bashed in the head with sufficient force, higher brain functions simply shut down. There will be some lower level brain activity, but no conscious thought. You will not be thinking.
@XGralgrathor The moment you lose capabilities to think or function your brain in its divinity, is the moment you become a vegetable. You cannot move your hand without thinking about moving your hand or where your hand will move. try it, you will find that you quickly mapped out the EXACT thing you want your arm to do by thinking of it. Therefore, if you bash me in the head, i may lose 'control' capabilities, not my consciousness or thought control, or I'd just die...
Stop inserting meaningless nonsense into your comments. It does nothing to strengthen your arguments.
« You cannot move your hand without thinking about moving your hand »
Well, that's where your wrong. Research has shown that most of such "decisions" are made subconsciously, sometimes even seconds before we become aware of them. There's very little that our consciousness contributes to our mental processing.
@MrGralgrathor "subconscious decisions"? so If i ran across the road. did i:
a) consciously decide to run across the road
or
b) happen to be flung across the road before i was conscious of such a decision making.?
Are you asserting that the "subconscious" is superior to the conscious? maybe in involuntary blinking or organ functions, but not for things such as. "moving your hand, or typing the keys in correct patterns regardless of steady flow and effortless accuracy" :)
Most likely not. Awareness has some involvement in the matter, but our goals are mostly determined subconsciously. We don't consciously decide to be ambitious and try and get that manager job. We don't consciously decide to be kind and help the old lady cross the street. We don't consciously decide to get hungry and go grab a burger. Most of those decisions are subconscious, rationalized by our awareness. This is what research shows.
@XGralgrathor body signals and conscientious considerations are not 'subconscious decisions'. Signals from the body are plainly signals and you can clearly disobey, as for "helping the old lady across the street" those are "opportunities to exercise good manners", the recognition of moral opportunities is not a subconscious decision, only a method of weighing the balance. Research may show you 'patterns' or 'moral trends' in terms of 'good sumaritan', still needing a conscious decision.
« body signals and conscientious considerations are not 'subconscious decisions' »
And again, research shows that many of our decisions are *not* conscious, but unconscious decisions that we become aware of only after having made them.
Eg.:
Brass et al, 2008, Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain
@XGralgrathor why are you making a bombastic sentence just to say "Instinct" ..? Sure there are instincts, but us as humans, with thinking being our ONLY significant paraphernalia, it requires conscious decisions to carry out such 'urges'. Again this is what separates us from animals. - they act off instincts irrationally, where, in a split second, we rationalize it, unless out of fear we make stupid [decisions] - to decide, the act of deciding (consciously). But again, this is off topic..
I am talking about decisions which we would experience as having been made consciously; not just about decisions that we all agree that are made instinctively. Read the paper.
@XGralgrathor "having been made consciously", you restated me... Let me demonstrate, there isn't an 'instinctive decision', only an 'instinctive urge' or 'natural convenience'. Instinctively i can run like hell from a fat jawed pitbul, or i can stand there and pretend i am superman and i should fight it off. Instinctively I would retaliate to a determined antagonist, but it is my conscious decision to refrain from such negativity. No demonstrable decision is made subconsciously. :P
« but it is my conscious decision to refrain from such negativity »
Again, I am contesting that all such decisions are made consciously. I am claiming that many such decisions are, at least to some degree, made subconsciously, before one becomes aware of them.
@MrGralgrathor Yes to some degree - to some minute uncounted degree of little to no relevance. In such, i'm asserting that only 0.01% of such a thing has happened, but this is not the issue, so like the 'how to think' battle, i will also drop it - for now at least. lol by that i mean until you get out of hand. ô_ö
« to some minute uncounted degree of little to no relevance »
No, I am not claiming that our decisions are made unconsciously to some minor degree. I am saying that many, if not most of our decisions are made *largely* unconsciously. That is my claim, and that is what research seems to be confirming.
« if you bash me in the head, then i will be left up to 'thinking' ONLY »
Not quite. If you get bashed in the head with sufficient force, higher brain functions simply shut down. There will be some lower level brain activity, but no conscious thought. You will not be thinking.
Science is magic, you take the hidden nature of the universe and use mathmatics to create things that did not exist prior, science is the alchemical dream come true. Science trully is great and magical the problem with Science is its philosophy that has now left it in a place where the model for nature has lead us to a place where we can see that reality is nothing without discription and is stranger than we can suppose.
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allthingsarelikethis
« Science is magic »
Science is the opposite of magic. Science is the attempt to explain things, and do away with a reliance on the supernatural to account for things.
You understand this, on some level, but you feel a deep psychological need to protect the faith with which you identify, and therefore twist that understanding into incomprehension. This is what fuels your intentional obtuseness. This is why I no longer see the use in responding to your comments.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
What is the relationship between mathmatics and science to nature? If what science says about reality is true then science too is just important to humans and therefore has no more use then that of religion, it depends on the individual as to which is more valuable as it is all made up by man for man and this means it is nothing but preference and nothing to do with intelligence as to the choices made. You and I are just doomed to our own poor tastes.
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« What is the relationship between mathmatics and science to nature? »
Mathematics is a tool used to describe observed natural relations. By extention, this tool can also be used to describe hypothetical relations that do not necessarily apply to observed instances.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor Yes but is the tool describing nature itself in full or is it just a symbolic construct that man has invented, only important to man or is it an understanding that transcends men?
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
Maths is a symbolic representation of relations in nature. It can be thought of as a language. Like language, it is manmade. Like language, it can be used to describe reality.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor When you say it can be used to describe reality does this not mean used to describe reality to man as man sees it? I mean the math becomes a description which is ONLY langauge.
If this langauge is only important to humans how is it any different than a religion?
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« I mean the math becomes a description which is ONLY langauge. »
Yes, basically. Even mathematicians (on their better days) don't believe they have some special insight into reality that all others lack. That attitude is reserved for the fundamentally religious.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor But it is not reserved for the fundamentally religious, despite the fact that when you get backed into a corner you admit there is no way special insight into reality you speak on every other occasion about maths accuracy and ability to define what is and can be accepted as reality.
Do you not see the contridiction?
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« But it is not reserved for the fundamentally religious »
Well, mostly. There's always some nutcases who don't have religious delusions, but mostly it's theists who seem to think they have knowledge about the nature of reality that the world's leading scientists lack, and that their personal insight gives them greater certitude as to the accuracy of their beliefs than actually testing their beliefs against reality.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor Yes perhaps but do you not do this yourself? I mean have you done all the tests yourself of the things that you believe to be real using science? If not is it not just as silly to believe that somebody else understands something so it must be real even over what I have experienced to be real? Either way you are trusting somebody elses experience of what is going on, are you not? If not can you explain how not?
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« but do you not do this yourself? »
Nope, I do not think I have some knowledge re the nature of reality that cannot or should not be subjected to testing.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor You just framed a small part of my comment and responded to that instead of what my comment asked you, do you care to answer the question that I asked and explain the difference or is this an attempt to avoid the question?
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« and responded to that »
And by doing so invalidated the rest of your comment. Again: I don't think any of my statements are excluded from the requirement of testability. And no, I don't see how the fact that I myself have not done *all* of the work required to show the Earth is a sphere means I should reject the proposition. That's just reasonable.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor Again you fram 4 words of a comment and respond to that instead of the actual question, and you do this on all of your replies to people it is an attempt to avoid the philosophical issues that arise in your beliefs due to you not having ever questioned them, that is fine but it would be nice if you had some sort of an idea of what you are defending or atleast could show that you have some idea.
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis He generally does that. It's kind of annoying checking your inbox to see MrGralgrathor highlighting one small part of your sentence and writing an essay about it explaining why he thinks your sentence is stupid, then you end up changing the subject trying to defend that little sentence. for instance. That cat is black because his fur is black because i painted it black because i bought black paint.
MrGralgrathor: " i bought black paint." Actually, the paint was sold to you.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« therefore has no more use then that of religion »
You can survive without religion. But science you apply daily, to most of the secular decisions you make in your life, whether you realize it or not.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor I would give credit to imagination in either case of needing either science or religion and your assertion that people can survive without their religion is opinion I would be willing to bet christians would not agree with that statement.
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
That's nice. However, the claim still remains valid, and accurate: humans can survive without religion (we know this because many humans *do* survive without religion) and most of us *do* use experience-based reasoning in everyday decision-making - in fact, we'd be hard pressed to survive without the benefits of experience-based reasoning.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathYes but the experience you speak of and the method that you believe in are only things that humans understand derived from the human imagination, there is no evidence that this matters to anything except mankind and in this way it is no different than a religion or any philosophy you can argue that it is more valuble but there is no proof or evidence that it actually is more valuble than spiritual or religious views it depends on your personal hierarchy does it not?
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
Irrelevant. The fact remains that people can survive without religion, but would be hard-put to survive without experience-based reasoning, the foundation of science.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor There are plenty of people that fell that religion is needed to survive life again it is perspective to assert that science is more needed than religion to some people.
Science is good for navigating the physical part of our experieces but just as you have admited, it is nothing more than a system that is important to humans and in this way has no higher ground in the debate of science Vs any other philosophy. If you think it does please explain how.
allthingsarelikethis 1 month ago
@allthingsarelikethis
« There are plenty of people that fell that religion is needed to survive life »
Of course. But they're wrong, as there are people who survive without religion, demonstrating conclusively that one can survive without religion.
No such thing has been demonstrated for experience-based reasoning though. For instance, experience tells you to check the road before crossing. I dare you to ignore your experience in the matter.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
also, stop copying and pasting; most times i never see your comments cuz they get spammed. im not saying your not original, you probably have the same arguments on different channels, but spammed messages barely get read, which is why it took my 3 days to reply simply cuz i just so happened to re-visit your channel and clicked on them.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
« stop copying and pasting »
No. I'm sure you receive notifications of responses I make, no?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
Also there is no such thing as a dry liquid. All pods are tigs, and all tigs are pods, therefore, all liquids are wet, and all wet things are liquid. there is no solid thing with wet texture, you cannot say Non-Nutonian fluid, because liquids were added to it to give it that semi-wet texture. So your argument isn't strong enough. Just admit evolution is rubbish, and that you were created by God. accept the fact that your intelligence and your complexities were god given, and not an accident.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« Also there is no such thing as a dry liquid »
And there's no such thing as a healthy kidney that doesn't do what kidneys do, or a healthy liver that doesn't do what livers do.
Science explains what kidneys do and how they do it. It explains what livers do and how they do it. It explains what brains do and how they do it. What it doesn't say is how to let *you* make them do those things, because the premise that such things could be consciously controlled is false.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« Just admit evolution is rubbish »
Ah, we're on a different subject again.
So, tell me this: if all of the things that we'd expect to see if a model were accurate are seen, and none of the things that we'd expect to see if the model were false are seen, then what reason do I have to reject that model? Explain, because I'm really curious about that.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 0.9. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution?.. No sir.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
« but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations »
Which only confirms the point I am making: they lack the physiological structures necessary to produce abstract thought, therefore they have no abstract thought.
By the way, laminin and laminin-type molecules are ubiquitous in many organisms besides humans. It's true that humans have much human-specific physiology. The presence of laminin is not part of that uniqueness.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor I dont know why i said "laminin".... -_- i admit that was stupid.. However, SINCE they lack physiological structures necessary to produce abstract thought, they are by no means capable of becoming a human, being LIKE a human, or gaining 'new' genes to replicate humanity. This is why animals are animals, and their only commonsense is 'instinct' or 'natural convenient rationale'. We may fall into the category of Apes, but such a categorizing was done by humans, therefore flawed.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« they are by no means capable of becoming a human »
... Again you speak nonsense. I never claimed that non-human apes could "become human". However, your statement that non-human great apes are *completely* different from humans is also manifestly wrong. Great apes *are* capable of some abstract thought, and in fact I hold that a non-human great ape could compete, mentally, with a five year old human child, IF it could somehow acquire linguistic skills.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
« monkeys only come up to a mere 0.9 »
But great apes, on the other hand, come up to a good 80. They have basic reasoning skills and are capable of some abstract thought. The most significant difference between non-human great apes and humans is linguistic skills. If they had that, there would be no noticeable difference between a non-human great ape, say a chimp, and a 5 year old human child.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor also, as for your updates, i receive them sometimes, but i am truly speaking when i said i had to click 'view' to see some of your comments. I do not know why. I wouldn't make that up, otherwise i would ignore your comments and pretend i won some sort of egotistic debate..
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
Appreciated. Sincerely though, I cannot start to compensate for all of Youtube's deficiencies. I'll see if I can find some technical solution that won't affect my commenting style.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 0.9. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 5. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these things are models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness and/or significance, goal and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a mere 5, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a whopping 2, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. Evolution? No sir.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. Trust me, from a scale from 1 to 100 (humans being 100), monkeys only come up to a whopping 2, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. Trust me, from a human scale from 1 to 100 , monkeys only come up to a whopping 2, You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor based on your expectation in covenant with the fact that these models are manmade, you will see what you seek. Monkeys are similar to humans, but they lack laminin, rationalizing skills, self-awareness, significance, goals and aspirations. You have to believe that you are by far mentally superior than anything deemed to be parallel to your entirety. don't waste time
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
Please remove the harsh tones, and in like-manner i will do so. As a matter of fact, i withdraw every negative thing i have said to you. Let us be philosophers here, you never know what we can accomplish. hey you may even be able to improve upon what other biologists or physicists assert. It is only a positive thing to do here. which is "think" and "discuss" war will only make our pride cause us to be bitter towards each other, and as a christian, i do not want to be a hypocrite
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
i would much rather we argue in private messages, so yielding and understanding can be done confidentially, and the egotistic battle to have the last comment would end, and end all possible embarassment, i like your ability to think. it may help you.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
No, there's no real need to. I like being forced to present my statements in clear and concise terms. It keeps the issues from becoming clouded by big words, muddy thinking and sidetracks.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
And whenever you get around this, whenever you, physics, astrology, or biology, reach the end of infinity, you can come back and teach me. you only know the beginning which is zero, but from there on, it is a bottomless pit, which proves my theory that numbers in terms of verbally counting are only given to us through defiant understanding. you cannot count the infinite decimals between 0 and 1, but it would be easier to count from 0 to 5 by just saying "zero, one,two,three,four,five" ignorantly
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« reach the end of infinity »
Now 'infinity', as far as I can tell, *is* an abstract notion. I have no way of telling that there can be an infinite amount of anything in the real world. 'Infinity' is a useful mathematical construct, but that's a far cry from claiming that it therefore must have real existence.
So let's table the 'infinity' issue for now. There may or may not be an infinite amount of something - it has no real bearing on the current subject.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
Also, to say mammals dream, is saying "whatever created mammals from the primordial soup, has the capability or attribute of dreaming". You cannot win this war no matter how sharp your responses are, even if you butter up biology to make it seem to pretty to deny, raw commonsense and simplicity will still confound you, and even so, destroy the concepts you so ignorantly assert. also what about the concept of infinity? the universe is based off of this concept. maybe you should contend with this.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« Also, to say mammals dream, is saying "whatever created mammals from the primordial soup, has the capability or attribute of dreaming" »
No, it isn't saying that. You seem to be practicing your skills in formulating non-sequiturs. There is no path from "mammals dream" to "whatever formed mammals dreams". Mammals, as far as we can tell, evolved from earlier animals through natural processes. Natural processes do not dream.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor So what made mammals, after its evolution, able to dream? where did this stunning capability come from? I am not asking for something you cannot provide, and if it requires a long explanation, please reply in a private message with a long enough plausible response. All gene capabilities are traceable and re-traceable, which is why us humans can mate and ONLY produce other humans. this is why all other species can ONLY produce themselves, this isn't going anywhere bro.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« So what made mammals, after its evolution, able to dream? »
Muddy thinking, boy. Dreaming is a result of the physiology of mammals, which evolved. Just like being able to walk on two legs is the result of the physiology of certain primates; an evolved ability.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« this is why all other species can ONLY produce themselves »
You want to switch the subject to evolution and speciation, and drop the whole 'supernatural' subject? Fine with me. I'll be happy to correct and improve your understanding of evolution.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« what about the concept of infinity? »
What about it?
« the universe is based off of this concept »
What on Earth do you mean? (Don't just use a lot of big words, kid; think about what you're trying to say!) And how would you know?
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
Finally, in that aspect, the aspect to prove science cannot define that which is supernatural or abstract, it has no place to disprove such things. If science is incapable of calculating or understanding mathematically the processes of that which is intangible or existing outside of physical understanding, it has no place to disprove it. An attempt to disprove it is saying it does not exist because i just cannot put it in my test-tube, or calculate it, or begin to fully define it.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« prove science cannot define that which is supernatural or abstract »
Well, there's no inconsistency in saying that science has no bearing on something that has not been demonstrated to exist (the 'supernatural'). As for 'abstract': I think you are still abusing the word. An abstract is a notional representation of something that may or may not exist in reality. To say that 'love is abstract' is to ignore the fact that the idea of love refers to a physical phenomenon.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor to say something like a "notional representation of what may or may not exist in reality", is to say that all definitive abstract principles "may or may not actually exist". in that sense, love - in and of itself- is something that is 'abstract', and though it is evident of its existence and all other abstract principles, it is foolish to say it "may or [may not exist]" i am not abusing the word, i am using the word in its entirety, something you've never done.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« is to say that all definitive abstract principles "may or may not actually exist" »
An abstract in itself does not exist. It is the idea of something. It is not an object with independent existence. It *may* however *refer* to something with independent existence. The abstract notion of love, for instance, refers to the physical process of love, the emotions, the thought patterns, the physiological responses.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« love - in and of itself- is something that is 'abstract' »
No: the abstract notion of love is abstract. Love itself is not abstract: it has a definitive existence in the physical world.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor Okay, nice logics, and that is wisely put together. However, in this case you are saying that all that does not physically exist are not real. "to think" is physical, but "thought" is abstract, "to desire" is physical but "desires" are abstract. I am certain that these abstract things exist. Also remember that i ask you to tell me the steps of "how to think"?. tell me how to think, tell me what do i do to think. this is another mystery, which is abstract by principle. But tell me
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« all that does not physically exist are not real »
I'm saying that abstract notions are abstract notions, not objects with an independent existence. Abstract notions exist only as perspectives on other things; other things that may or may not have an independent existence. Abstract notions are real only in the sense that we can conceive of them; they have no *independent* existence, although they may refer to things with an independent existence.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« "to think" is physical, but "thought" is abstract »
Well, one could define the word "thought" as a label for an abstraction. But it would be an abstract referring to a physical thing: a process in the brain.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« I am certain that these abstract things exist »
No, they don't. They are real, in that we can conceive of them. But they *in themselves* are only abstractions. In the case of 'desire', the abstraction refers to a combination of mental processes, which is in turn a physical process, something we can point at in the physical world.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« i ask you to tell me the steps of "how to think"? »
I don't have to tell you how to think. Thinking is a process naturally following from the physiology of your brain. You have a brain; you can't help but think, just as an apple tree can't help but grow apples. And just like the apple tree, you have no low-level control over your thought patterns. You can decide what to think about, to a certain degree, but that's about it.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor I can define why a tree grows apples, I can also tell a tree how to grow apples. by absorbing the nutrients, then xylem and blah blah blah all of that, that is a full instruction on "what to do"in terms of making a fruit. but "how to think", there are no steps to approach this deed. I can actually help to think. a time when i am "not thinking" is me not doing this action: watching TV is not thinking, eating food is notthinking, and i dont have to think to breathe. see?
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« I can define why a tree grows apples »
And I can explain in neurological and endocrinological terms how the physical process of thought results from the physology of your body. It would take me about twenty thousand pages of text to do so (probably more, much more, but it'd be a start) though.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor we are actually discussing the brain, which do things that confounds us both. but Science cannot be anthropomorphically defined to be able to make divine decisions on what can or cannot exist. it is only a step to understand that which surrounds us physically, but giving science such divine right to make such decisions as universal, is giving science characteristics of a god, therefore you are guilty of idolatry, and science would then be your god.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« divine decisions »
Excuse me, but if you're going to use words, define them first. And if you're going to inject supernaturalism into subjects, first establish that it applies: demonstrate the existence of the thing you assert.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor divine decisions as decisions dubbed superior to every other concept of reality or actuality (inside and out). a divine decision is a decision which irrevocably portray the significance and totality of all things within its own retrospect and such laws much reflect outside of its own concept. which is the definition of truly supernaturally omnipotent. It's simple really.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« divine decisions as decisions dubbed superior to every other concept of reality or actuality »
That makes no sense. First, you'd have to define what 'superior' means. That implies a value judgment. Judged by whom, and by what criteria? And how are you going to judge a decision to be 'superior to a concept of reality'? You are comparing entirely different classes of things based on undefined criteria.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor jumping to evolution is not my attempt to evade the topic, we can go there if you'd like, but it is only on your will. as for divine decisions, there are multiple laws of physics, and there are multiple laws of math. a divine law is in a sense, a law of possibility and reasons for such possibilites that are superior to all other laws. meaning no law can go outside of this boundary. meaning anything else would be an impossibility, which is the concept of asserting God does not exist
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« meaning anything else would be an impossibility, which is the concept of asserting God does not exist »
Are you saying that there exists a law that says it's impossible to assert gods don't exist?
Gods don't exist.
There, I've proven you wrong :)
All silliness aside. If you're saying that a law exists that says a god must exist, then I'll ask you to *demonstrate* that.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor well sir, that law, is hysterically, the same law of faith. the reason i said there is no law to rule out god's existence is me saying that scientists cannot say he does not exist, because they have not the capacity to do so
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« that law, is hysterically, the same law of faith »
You're saying that your claim that a god must exist is a matter of faith? That's another way of saying that the accuracy of the claim cannot be demonstrated. Why should I or anyone accept such a claim if its accuracy cannot be demonstrated?
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« there is no law to rule out god's existence »
That's an entirely *different* statement. Of course there is no such law. There is no law to rule out the existence of pixies, fairies and invisible pink unicorns either. That doesn't mean there is a reason to think that any of these mythological beings, including your god, might actually exist.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor seeing that both you and I know that these things were evidently created for the entertainment of children, we will leave that as dead. such imaginations only have concepts of entertainment, not evident concepts of why we are alive, how are we able to live, and creationism. There is no book written about the divine principles of leprechauns? there are no disciples of fairies? and half of the world are not in a religion of pixie-ism. so we obviously know those doesn't exist. lol....
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« seeing that both you and I know that these things were evidently created for the entertainment of children »
False and irrelevant. The relevant thing is that they are mythical beings for which there exists no evidence but that we can also not disprove existing. I we take 'faith' as a criterion, we should accept their existence.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor cont- first step to prove god is that, nothing naturally can give us the attributes and capabilities we have without first having the potential to do such things (ruling out biotic nature), which means a divine being "God" imprint these attributes in our genes. second step, is that the universe is built off the concept of infinity, and since we cannot contain infinity, we have to understand it was created by that which encompasses such a dimension which encompasses infinity.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« nothing naturally can give us the attributes and capabilities we have without first having the potential to do such things »
That is nonsensical. It does not follow. From anything. For instance: evolution can give organisms new capabilities: evolution is not a physical entity that can have such capabilities itself.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor in order to "give" something you must first "have" something. therefore evolution of giving attributes bigger than its capacity to contain such attributes is a contradiction within itself. therefore, it is 'nonsensical'
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« in order to "give" something you must first "have" something »
Read up on evolution. You'll see how evolution can cause new traits in organisms even though it is not an entity that can have traits of itself.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor to cause something is to have a reaction prior to causing it, and no reaction can create a gene imprint, within the process of passing on traits, if so, reactions can happen in the womb and create super powerful babies, or babies that can do things we are incapable of. lol
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« and no reaction can create a gene imprint »
New genes are often caused by spontaneous mutations, which are basically chemical reactions in the genome. Notice the word spontaneous here: nothing else is required for them to happen than the molecules of which the genome consists behaving in the way molecules behave. They don't require any external influence for them to behave that way.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor lol sir, i really have to sleep. i will surely come back tomorrow and continue whatever is left of this discussion. g'dnight man.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor by the psychology of your body you mean the capacity of your body to perceive and react and weigh the balance? that alone is its capability by that definition. you can still define the physical process of thought, but, and i know this may be aggravating, you cannot explain "how to think" you can tell "why i think" or "for what logical reasons i may find myself doing so", but not "how to think". also read my comment about why the title of this video contradicts your claims
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« by the psychology of your body »
Physiology. The physical structure of your body. The way neurons work, the way hormones affect neurological processes, and so on.
« you cannot explain "how to think" »
Yes: that *is* the physiological process. The physiological process of neural signals and patterns, of neural and hormonal interactions, that is how we think.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor that is how we think, meaning that is how we are able to think, but in like manner of saying how to sing, or how to run, or how to walk, or how to swim, you cannot just tell me how it is possible, you have to tell me "how to do it", of course swimming is possible because we can contain air and the water is more dense than us, but a noob must know "how to swim" or else, him and his less-dense self will drown regardless of his capacity to swim.......
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« you cannot just tell me how it is possible »
Not in any depth. Not without the twenty thousand pages of text on the physiology of our brains, the neurochemical processes, and so on, no. You'll have to look up the texts yourself. But those processes basically are our thoughts. They are us.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor I believe you, you are right, i know you can tell me how it is possible. but that sentence of mine you put in quote is only half of the entire sentence, therefore i'll have to overlook this response.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« only half of the entire sentence »
When I quote only a part, you can usually assume I am responding to the entire sentence, sometimes the entire comment.
Again: I don't have to tell you how to think. You *are* thinking. I *can* explain how you are doing it. Which is where the stack of books on neurology etc. comes in.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
There's an interesting book you might read by a Dick Swaab, a dutch author. He tried to explain the working of our brains, thoughts, desires, and so on, in laymen terms, seen from the perspective of endocrinology. Some of his books have been translated into English, but I don't know if this one has. In English, the title would be "We Are Our Brains".
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor I will definitely read the book or search out what was proposed in there
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor "science has no bearing on something that has not been demonstrated to exist'', this is erroneous. if you cannot physically demonstrate it, then you cannot scientifically disprove it. all that which is abstract or supernatural, can only be explained and proposed, also conceived, but not physically demonstrated in retrospect of its opposite which is disproving it. Therefore this is why accepting God, is having Faith. you cannot disprove God can you?
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« cannot physically demonstrate it, then you cannot scientifically disprove it »
Kid, use yer brain for a second, will you? What would be the use in trying to disprove elves, pixies, leprechauns, the Spaghetti Monster, and so on?
Until a substantiable claim of existence is made, there is nothing for science to address. And such a claim would have to be testable for science to consider it, because science is the mechanism of testing claims to derive their "truth" value.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor You just said it, "until a substantial claim of existence is made, there is nothing for science to address", therefore that just restates my theory that science cannot address that which is supernatural, therefore it cannot disprove it. So in conclusion, we cannot scientifically post a video saying the "supernatural is not real" because you cannot prove such things. These things are outside of scientific understandings. I have indeed used my brain, farther than physical horizons.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« science cannot address that which is supernatural »
That's right. But since there are no testable claims as to the existence of anything supernatural, there's really no problem. Moreover, since we could define the 'natural' as anything that affects observable reality, there's only two options for the 'supernatural': either it doesn't exist, or it's entirely irrelevant to our existence. So there is no problem here, nor will there ever be.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor supernatural by definition means a being with characteristics outside of what is natural. I understand your reasons, and i do think its genius to say so, but to dismiss that which is a supernatural principle is somewhat saying "because my god 'science' cannot touch this, and because no man can demonstrate it, i dont have to believe it even exists'' and without offense, it means being lazy. this is why christians use the application of faith, which is evidence of things not seen.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« supernatural by definition means a being with characteristics outside of what is natural »
And 'natural' means whatever affects observable reality. Meaning that either the supernatural does not exist, or it does not affect observable reality, in which case it's irrelevant whether it exists or not.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor by irrelevant you mean that it does not physically apply to you. that is fine, i am not her to say a ghost pops up in your life and control your day. but as far as saying that the supernatural does not exist is saying you have tangibly disproved this....
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« by irrelevant you mean that it does not physically apply to you »
To me, or anybody or anything, in any way that can be demonstrated.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor not really a wise thing to say. you cannot say what all have happened to anybody, remember you said you have not seen such supernatural claims yet, so i dont think asserting that same thing for everybody is a safe thing to do
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« remember you said you have not seen such supernatural claims yet »
I've seen plenty of *claims*. But none that were testable. Claims that are not testable cannot be distinguished from fantasy, and must be put aside.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor "I've seen plenty of *claims*"
that is evidence in itself. you have not seen 'all' claims.... as much as i've had to search up the sanity of that which you assert, you have to search up such 'claims' that you've never come across. simple
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "I've seen plenty of *claims*"
that is evidence in itself. you have not seen 'all' claims.... as much as i've had to search up the sanity of that which you assert, you have to search up such 'claims' that you've never come across. simple
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« that is evidence in itself »
Not unless it can be corroborated by physical evidence.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« all that which is abstract »
Abstracts are ideas of things. Things that may or may not exist. The idea of love, for instance, is about love, which does exist. The idea of justice however refers to something that has no physical existence: we have only the idea, the abstract.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« is having Faith »
So? What good is faith? What else is faith but saying "I have no real reason to accept this claim, but will do so anyway"?
« you cannot disprove God can you? »
Why would I want to? I have no real reason to think gods exist, so there'd be little for me to try and disprove now, would there?
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor having faith is knowing there is, but is not able to absorb it with your senses. your senses are all that allow you to perceive something to be real. The beauty of faith is know it is, without seeing it. Faith is the substance of things hope for, and the evidence of things not seen.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« having faith is knowing »
No. Either 'knowing' is used to indicate having a belief about something that is justifiable in real terms, or else the word loses all meaning. You can't just say "I know this", if 'this' hasn't been established: then it's just a belief, not knowledge.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor wait, you canot split my sentence in half.... "having faith is knowing without seeing". faith is the "evidence" of things "not seen". to have faith is to be consistently believing that which is evident though it has not tangibly presented itself to you, unless you have felt supernatural experiences such as premoitions, the holy spirit, or being raised from the dead, which have all occured with proof, look them up.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« having faith is knowing without seeing »
So your faith is based on some other test of observable reality? Then you redefine the word 'faith' to actually mean 'trust in the accuracy of ones senses', whether or not such senses include sight.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor you know of air.... you believe in air, you have faith in its existence, yet you have never seen air. How do you even know that what is blowing against you is not air? how are you certain it is not a wave of radioactive broken down ions invisible because of the recombination of protons to electrons, allowing photons to flow freely? therefore, accepting air as "true" without seeing it, or containing it, is faith itself
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« you have faith in its existence »
No, I don't. I can *test* whether air exists. Faith is not required.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor yes you can "test" whether air exists, but you still cannot tell me that air blows on you everyday, you cannot even sense airborne diseases coming around you or entering you or blowing on you, because you are a slave to faith and faith alone that every invisible thing that is "windy" has to be air. to refute such things is to argue against your original claims. I am not here to disprove you entirely, but only to show how certin aspects of evolution and the BB are foolishness. :)
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« but you still cannot tell me that air blows on you everyday »
I can test the pressure and constitution of the gases surrounding me at any time, given the necessary expenditure of effort. But even without continued testing, it would be an entirably reasonable conclusion that the gases surrounding me were indeed air, given my knowledge of biology, chemistry, geology, and so on. No faith would be required. There is sufficient reason to conclude I am indeed surrounded by air.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor I take it you missed a comment i made. How do you know that these mixture of gasses called "air" is ALWAYS the thing which blows upon you?, again, it could be a wall of broken down ions in the recombination retrospect. You simply would not. you simply cannot tell when you've contracted an airborne disease while it is happening to you. You cannot walk outside and say "AHHH, a disease just touched me!!" these are the things which you cannot see, therefore faith in "air" is evident
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« ALWAYS the thing which blows upon you? »
I addressed this in two comments:
"I can test the pressure and constitution of the gases surrounding me at any time"
and seconds
"The absence of absolutes does not require us to have faith"
In short: it is *reasonable*, based on the evidence available, that while we're on Earth, we will be surrounded by air, exceptional circumstances excepted. No faith is required.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor Ahh, but you would have to TEST such things. You cannot Test something as it is happening to you, then it would become a past event on which you can study. Same concept of faith and religion. Again i am not here to bash you, just to appreciate your capability to think and respond, so that i may respond, and if i am unable to respond, that means you have won. So i advise you, think about all possible responses i can give you and answer them before i type it. easy :)
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« but you would have to TEST such things »
Not if you can be reasonably sure based on available knowledge and past experience.
Like I said, a number of times now, it is only *absolute* certitute that would require faith. But we, all of us, you included, don't live our lives in absolute certainty of anything. Well, except then perhaps your godbelief, which *does* require faith.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can ONLY be touched by invisible things if it is AIR. and in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect. It is by logic and conscience you would do so.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can ONLY be touched by invisible things if it is AIR. and in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect. It is by logic and conscience you would do so.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can only be touched by invisible things if and only if its air. in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect. It is by logic and conscience you would do so.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities, and you then say that we can only be touched by invisible things if and only if its air. in your second half of your reply, i thought you can see that you just stated the uncertainty of everything unless faith is implied. therefore you are supposed to have faith in that which is supernaturally possible, rather than that which is mathematically incorrect.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« being reasonably sure is being omnipresent on the entirety of all possibilities »
No, that's *absolutely* sure (which is *UNreasonable*, since you can't be absolutely sure about anything). The keyword in "being reasonably sure" is *reasonably*. Which means being sure to the same extent that you're sure that the sun will rise next day. There's always the off chance that it won't happen, but but it turned out okay so far, and there's no real reason to expect otherwise now.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor well great response, i hope you pick wisely, now that you're at the fork in your beliefs, since you have to pick from both "seemingly illogical" sides, i hope you pick Christ. Great talk though.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« now that you're at the fork in your beliefs »
I am not at a fork in my beliefs. My beliefs are quite secure. I have chosen the "logical side" long ago.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor
test
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor and one last thing, you still haven't told me "How to think". remember, dont tell me why am i able to think, just tell me "how to think", like "how to swim" or "how to run", but yes, tell me "how to think". you will realize that you cannot possibly tell me how to, and it is something you voluntarily do so it's not like it's just some natural thing the brain does, so tell me, how to think? this is a capability given to us by that which is supernatural.[Mind], Body, and Soul.
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
@chromeninjar3d
« you still haven't told me "How to think" »
Again: I don't have to tell you how to think. You *are* thinking. I *can* explain *how* you are doing it. Which is where the stack of books on neurology etc. comes in.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@XGralgrathor You just admitted you cannot explain how. Therefore it is a supreme capability that no common animal or particle can do. Animals don't think, they react off of their instincts. The minute an animal stars to "think" and/or "rationalize", that's when the animal can equivocate being a human. Therefore, evolution is rubbish. You cannot explain how races came to be, you cannot explain how a "female specie" with "eggs" were created for every "initial specie", particles aren't beings. :)
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« You just admitted you cannot explain how »
On the contrary. I told you many times now that I *can* explain how thought works, given the required volumes of explanatory text.
What I can *not* do is tell you how to consciously act to *stop* thinking, other than to give yourself a good bash over the head with a heavy, blunt instrument.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor Oil is indeed wet, im sure you don't think its dry.... well anyways, You indeed explained how thoughts work, but you haven't explained how to produce a thought. I am not bashing your intelligence, i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism. And a fun fact, if you bash me in the head, then i will be left up to 'thinking' ONLY, without physically doing anything since i lost connection..O_O
chromeninjar3d 2 months ago
« you haven't explained how to produce a thought »
Again: that's easy. Get born with a healthy brain. Of course you don't get to decide whether you get born with a healthy brain or not, and neither do you get to decide whether you think or not - unless you take some fairly hefty medication.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor Actually, you still haven't explain. 'how to think'. Let us ignore my mother&father's business of reproduction... Only you and I are on this planet, tell me, "how to think" ? And as for your 'healthy brain' suggestion, people with unhealthy brains can 'think' as well :/ You will see that you cannot because, as i've just said, the brain CAN ONLY produce the abstract. (be sure to read the comment before this one).
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« you still haven't explain. 'how to think' »
You're a bit dense, aren't you? I've told you a hundred times now that I can't tell you how to think anymore than I can tell you how to use your liver to synthesize insuline. Your liver just does. Your brain just does. It's what these organs do. I can tell you what thought is, how it works, but asking people to tell you "how to think" is just nonsense. And if you haven't gotten a clue by now, I'm done with your nonsense.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor Lol "Use my liver?". Do i seriously "consciously" use my liver? That is where get into the involuntary aspects of our body, but i have already demonstrated that thinking is voluntary, therefore the liver 'doing' is totally on it's own, and get this, it still cannot work without the brain. only thing demonstrated to work without the brain is the heart, but that's not relevant. The brain stands alone, as much as you hate the question, you still have to explain this. Mr. Wiseguy
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chromeninjar3d
« Lol "Use my liver?". Do i seriously "consciously" use my liver? »
EXACTLY. You DON'T. Nor do you consciously use your brain. You have no say in the matter (unless you do the thing with the hammer). When you're awake, you think. Period. The demand that somebody teach you "how to think" is simply nonsensical. At best, I can teach you how to think *logically*, but you've already demonstrated an acute lack of interest in that.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
« i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism »
But you have done nothing of a kind, so far. All you've done is complain about how we (meaning: you) don't understand how thought works. It's not an argument for *anything*.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor I complain? As a matter of fact, I understand how things DON'T work. and these things fit in that category :)
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
« i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism »
But you have done nothing of a kind, so far. All you've done is complain about how we (meaning: you) don't understand how thought works. It's not an argument for *anything*.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
« i am just pointing out the inconsistency of abiogenesis-evolution-darwinism »
But you have done nothing of a kind, so far. All you've done is complain about how we (meaning: you) don't understand how thought works. It's not an argument for *anything*.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
« if you bash me in the head, then i will be left up to 'thinking' ONLY »
Not quite. If you get bashed in the head with sufficient force, higher brain functions simply shut down. There will be some lower level brain activity, but no conscious thought. You will not be thinking.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor The moment you lose capabilities to think or function your brain in its divinity, is the moment you become a vegetable. You cannot move your hand without thinking about moving your hand or where your hand will move. try it, you will find that you quickly mapped out the EXACT thing you want your arm to do by thinking of it. Therefore, if you bash me in the head, i may lose 'control' capabilities, not my consciousness or thought control, or I'd just die...
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« your brain in its divinity »
Stop inserting meaningless nonsense into your comments. It does nothing to strengthen your arguments.
« You cannot move your hand without thinking about moving your hand »
Well, that's where your wrong. Research has shown that most of such "decisions" are made subconsciously, sometimes even seconds before we become aware of them. There's very little that our consciousness contributes to our mental processing.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor "subconscious decisions"? so If i ran across the road. did i:
a) consciously decide to run across the road
or
b) happen to be flung across the road before i was conscious of such a decision making.?
Are you asserting that the "subconscious" is superior to the conscious? maybe in involuntary blinking or organ functions, but not for things such as. "moving your hand, or typing the keys in correct patterns regardless of steady flow and effortless accuracy" :)
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« consciously decide »
Most likely not. Awareness has some involvement in the matter, but our goals are mostly determined subconsciously. We don't consciously decide to be ambitious and try and get that manager job. We don't consciously decide to be kind and help the old lady cross the street. We don't consciously decide to get hungry and go grab a burger. Most of those decisions are subconscious, rationalized by our awareness. This is what research shows.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor body signals and conscientious considerations are not 'subconscious decisions'. Signals from the body are plainly signals and you can clearly disobey, as for "helping the old lady across the street" those are "opportunities to exercise good manners", the recognition of moral opportunities is not a subconscious decision, only a method of weighing the balance. Research may show you 'patterns' or 'moral trends' in terms of 'good sumaritan', still needing a conscious decision.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« body signals and conscientious considerations are not 'subconscious decisions' »
And again, research shows that many of our decisions are *not* conscious, but unconscious decisions that we become aware of only after having made them.
Eg.:
Brass et al, 2008, Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor why are you making a bombastic sentence just to say "Instinct" ..? Sure there are instincts, but us as humans, with thinking being our ONLY significant paraphernalia, it requires conscious decisions to carry out such 'urges'. Again this is what separates us from animals. - they act off instincts irrationally, where, in a split second, we rationalize it, unless out of fear we make stupid [decisions] - to decide, the act of deciding (consciously). But again, this is off topic..
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« Sure there are instincts »
I am talking about decisions which we would experience as having been made consciously; not just about decisions that we all agree that are made instinctively. Read the paper.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor "having been made consciously", you restated me... Let me demonstrate, there isn't an 'instinctive decision', only an 'instinctive urge' or 'natural convenience'. Instinctively i can run like hell from a fat jawed pitbul, or i can stand there and pretend i am superman and i should fight it off. Instinctively I would retaliate to a determined antagonist, but it is my conscious decision to refrain from such negativity. No demonstrable decision is made subconsciously. :P
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« but it is my conscious decision to refrain from such negativity »
Again, I am contesting that all such decisions are made consciously. I am claiming that many such decisions are, at least to some degree, made subconsciously, before one becomes aware of them.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrGralgrathor Yes to some degree - to some minute uncounted degree of little to no relevance. In such, i'm asserting that only 0.01% of such a thing has happened, but this is not the issue, so like the 'how to think' battle, i will also drop it - for now at least. lol by that i mean until you get out of hand. ô_ö
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« to some minute uncounted degree of little to no relevance »
No, I am not claiming that our decisions are made unconsciously to some minor degree. I am saying that many, if not most of our decisions are made *largely* unconsciously. That is my claim, and that is what research seems to be confirming.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
« if you bash me in the head, then i will be left up to 'thinking' ONLY »
Not quite. If you get bashed in the head with sufficient force, higher brain functions simply shut down. There will be some lower level brain activity, but no conscious thought. You will not be thinking.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d
« tell me "how to think" »
Sigh. Okay, here's the trick: get born. Okay, there's a bit more to it than that: get born with a brain.
Water is wet. Rain falls. Stars shine. Clouds float. Brains think. That's how.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago